Dear Hon. Mayor Adams and Chair Garodnick,

We, the undersigned, call for your support on a proposal to include a significant amendment to the current regulations governing the transfer of air rights within New York City. We call for the expansion of the transferability of air rights (developable floor area) beyond the current limitations, allowing for transfers across a larger district—allowing access to additional ​“receivers”—specifically for New York Housing Authority (NYCHA) campuses. This proposal is grounded in the pressing need to address affordability and supply challenges that the City of Yes Housing Opportunity Proposal looks to ameliorate while providing much needed funds to NYCHA.

Context and Current Limitations:

New York City, renowned for its dynamic urban landscape, is facing an ever-increasing demand for development space. The concept of air rights, which refers to the legal ownership of developable floor area above a property, has emerged as a pivotal solution. Currently, air rights can be transferred through mechanisms like zoning lot mergers, special purpose district transfers, and landmark transfers. However, these methods are often restricted to adjacent properties or specific districts, limiting the potential for broader urban development and optimization of space.

NYCHA developments have almost $80 billion in capital needs and have a considerable amount of underutilized land. However, the transfer of NYCHA air rights are restricted mostly to zoning lot mergers—the joining of two or more adjacent zoning lots into one zoning lot. NYCHA has shifted unused development rights from one lot to another, as-of-right at the College Avenue - East 165 Street, Bay View, and Manhatanville public housing developments. The only exception is that property owners that are not immediately adjacent to a NYCHA-controlled lots, but are within the same block, may pursue purchasing NYCHA development rights, if the merged zoning lot contains contiguous parcels. This makes transferable development rights (TDR) difficult for the agency. The restrictions are contributory to continued poor conditions for NYCHA residents.

Proposal for Change:

The City has recognized the utility of expanding TDRs to save buildings with landmark designations in the 1960s, has made alterations to the landmark TDR program to improve it, and are currently proposing expansion of the program under The City of Yes initiative. This expansion is to historic districts, certain lower density areas, and other zoning lots on the same zoning block as the landmark zoning lot or across the street or an intersection from that block. The City of Yes for Housing Opportunity proposal admits that the program just isn’t working given the low frequency of transfers and suggests relieving restrictions on TDR opportunities; the plan also simplifies regulations for campuses, including NYCHA developments, for infill projects.

We propose that the City and Department of City Planning consider the following:

• Expand Transferable Development Rights (TDRs): Allow for the transfer of air rights across larger districts, not just between adjacent NYCHA properties or within the same block. By creating a Public Housing TDR Program, DCP could increase the frequency of transfers.
  • A Regional Plan Association study revealed that there are 78 million square feet of unused development rights owned by NYCHA. In order to unlock them, the study concluded that an expanded TDR program that would allow as-of-right transfers within a half-mile distance from the NYCHA generating site could, in theory, provide a path to unlocking all unused development rights owned by the authority. A rough estimate is that this could ultimately provide a revenue source of between $4.2 and $8.4 billion.
• Streamline Processes: Simplify the bureaucratic process for TDRs to encourage more property owners to utilize this option for urban development.
• Ensure that ​“tower-in-the-park” campus infill zoning changes allow for contextual development for NYCHA: In 2020, architects serving as fellows in Regional Plan Association’s (RPA) Kaplan Chairs for Urban Design produced designs that replace outdated and centralized building mechanicals, added private outdoor spaces via balconies, and better integrating existing buildings within neighborhoods. The most striking and novel element of the proposal was the expansion of existing buildings into the unoccupied ground floor to develop additional units. New units extended the properties to sidewalks and streetside, finally integrating NYCHA with the rest of the city. Adding to this proposal, a mixture of household types can ensure that NYCHA properties remain well-maintained, recapitalizing the city’s greatest assets. As is practice with the Public Housing Preservation Trust, we propose that any such development be approved via resident vote.
• The City should formally study how the campus infill proposal and NYCHA TDR expansion would interact, as called for in RPA’s comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Draft Scope of Work CEQR # 24DCP033Y.

Conclusion:

The City of Yes for Housing Opportunity Proposal points out how the lack of housing and affordable housing puts New Yorkers at greater risk of housing instability and sets forth proposals to help address the shortage. NYC’s public housing is the most deeply affordable and abundant stock of affordable housing in any major US city. Preserving NYCHA units should be a priority for all agencies and stakeholders invested in strong urban communities and prevention of homelessness. The expansion of air rights transferability presents a forward-thinking approach to urban planning in New York City. It aligns with the city’s aspirations for sustainable, equitable, and innovative development. We urge the City and Department of City Planning to consider this proposal earnestly and initiate the necessary steps towards its implementation.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Signed,

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS)

Regional Plan Association (RPA)